They pretend they are doing it for the children
-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
Roe V Wade has been repealed
- Thread starter Noctosphere
- Start date
- Views 75,306
- Replies 2,460
- Likes 4
- Status
Blind religious ideology.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2014
- Messages
- 14,600
- Trophies
- 4
- Location
- Another World
- Website
- www.gbatemp.net
- XP
- 25,218
- Country
More like they only care about outdated values and produce more disposable people they could profit on, so obviously they must come to living, grow up, become trapped in the work/wage hell and in their turn also be forced to carry children they cannot afford to have, and then be the ones accused of poor parenting just for being poor or overwhelmed.
it's such a great mentality, breed more babies, and fuck you! (literally and figuratively).
You cannot afford to have a kid, and your contraception failed? or you were raped and are now pregnant? well too bad, you must preserve the child's life that hasn't even come into being at your own expense, if you die or miscarry, it's also your fault!
You just can't win in that kind of mess, isn't that funny?
That doesn't add up. I can discuss with you where we draw the line on personhood regardless of any deity or that deity's rules. This debate is ongoing in the Scientific community as well, and I have never come across a religious argument from any of the papers I've looked at. I'll admit I haven't parsed carefully through every single research paper I've come across, but at a high level the debate seems to fall around brain activity in that field. Religion is not a necessary component. I can provide you with examples, if you'd like.
I am very aware of all of these. And yes, they are very real - the issue I'm trying to draw your attention to is that it's not logically reasonable to assume that legal precedent is a reason to hold back or push forward a decision, because while our decisions can be a slippery slope, and do set a precedent, it's not guaranteed. It's just a weaker structure for an argument when debating these topics, I think. The Wikipedia article on Slippery Slope fallacy can probably make the case more clearly than I can, but I think it really just has people spinning their wheels. Both left and right parties feel there's a slippery slope on nearly every hot topic.
There are cases where this kind of argument is sound, but only in the context of "if you do this, there will be consequences you may have not considered, and here's what could happen..." But in the context of political discussion, it suggests that the next outcome from the government is inevitable, when we know we can look at each issue, vote, talking point, etc. independently.
See, this is what I'm talking about. Some things can be defined objectively, sure. But definitions that relate to subjective and controversial matters are not absolutes. "An embryo is not a person" doesn't become a true statement of fact just because someone claiming to be the arbiter writes a definition. From my perspective, your reliance on sources of "truth" that agree with your opinions is the proof of your immature reasoning. "A person with a penis can be a woman if they think they are" is "truth" according to sources you can quote as authority, but patently absurd in reality. "An embryo is not a person" may be something you believe strongly, but if some other person believes an embryo's individual and unique DNA, beating heart, nervous system and brain activity all do make it a person, their belief is just as valid as yours. No matter what Priscilla Prickly-Tits at Merriam-Webster has to say about it. That's the nature of controversial topics ... different people rationally believe different things, and you're not automatically correct just because some twerp at DailyKos said the same thing as you.
No, theres no difference to what i was saying. All crimes would increase if not for preventive measures and programs.
Never wrote it is a person, still it has the right to life, still it is protected by law, and has moral and legal rights, and in some countries it is recognized as a person, so it also depends.
???? 3 million is the 1% of all women in US, not all women in US had abortions and 3 million women did not committed an abortion because of an unwanted pregnancy due to rape.... I said that out of all abortions that were carried out, not even 1% of said abortions were due to rape. Its a weak argument to use an exception that does not even constitute 1% of abortions for your general cause. and no, you cant argue based on exceptions, thats a fallacy lol, and your saying does not apply here at all, you are not proving anything.
You care about the baby being born but not what happens after it's born. You want to know nothing about it.
That's kinda the point though, isn't it? If we use deductive reasoning to reason that religion is not a component when it comes to science, then it must be true that when science isn't explicitly used in an anti abortion argument, then the component must be emotion. Except, we have several generations of Christian values that have equated anti abortion sentiments alongside emotionally based, moralistic value. It's not unheard of to be against the extinguish of life in any capacity, any form, but when you have notably Conservative Republican Christians pushing the anti science agenda when it comes to pro life debates, one can deduce that their emotional reasoning comes from a belief in a higher power that dictates their moralistic values.
I'm not opposed to legal abortion FWIW. I'm not really here to debate the issue, I just think the pro-abortion side is too dismissive of the opposition's concern. Your talking about "general consensus" like that makes it the truth. It's just opinion.
Can't a non-religious person believe that fetuses have moral status? I also think animals have moral status -- is that religious too?
Radicalisation for what purpose? To achieve what? What's the end game? Control? Authoritarianism?
How does it benefit themselves?
I suppose even when people help others it gives them a warm fuzzy feeling inside and this technically benefits themselves because it feels good, and some philosophers go as far as saying altruist acts are inherently selfish because of this, but I don't necessarily agree.
Embryos are not babies.
If religion is not part of the conversation, then we can certainly agree that something without a brain lacks personhood.
It isn't a slippery slope argument to talk about legal precedents and what the concurrent opinion literally suggested should come next.
Not to sound disrespectful, but why are you still talking?
If we ignore a person's religious beliefs on the topic, there's no definition I'm aware of by which an embryo would be considered a person. An embryo doesn't have any brain activity worth talking about.
I'm talking about facts, not opinions or religious beliefs. A parent is not defined as someone who is pregnant. An embryo and a baby are two different things.
The difference is abortion should not be a crime, and even when criminalized, abortions still occur (albeit less safely). The only significant consequence of anti-abortion laws is women dying.
If it isn't a person, why does it have a right to life?
It shouldn't be protected by law at the expense of an actual person (the one who is pregnant).
If the incidence of rape isn't 0, then abortion should be legal in the case of rape.
It's not particularly concerning to me on an individual level and indeed I would prefer that such people don't spawn, but of course it's a tough sell to normalize industrialized child sacrifice sold as retroactive birth control.
Cry me a river that I'm dismissive of somebody's belief in taking away a person's right to bodily autonomy, lol.
Sorry, I meant to say 3 million "people", not women exclusively. My bad.
So how many is 1% of all abortions? How many of these women and their situations are completely meaningless?
Of course you say it's a fallacy, because your whole contention is based off miswording on my part. The actual argument should be focusing on those that get caught unfairly under this blanket of obliviation, and instead you'd rather dissect an argument based on semantics than prove the idea that you think women are made for giving birth and nothing else.
Try again.
Yes, and I'm one of those people, but belief that fetuses have moral consideration is different than saying abortion should be illegal and a fetus's moral considering takes precedence over a woman's right to bodily autonomy. Feel free to re-ask the question in a different way.
Whether or not it's rational depends on what that moral status is. No, it doesn't have to be religious. Again, you've changed the question. Please be more specific.
It seems that when abortion was legal and federally backed you were against it, so what's the difference now? At what point is abortion legal in your eyes?
And in this same thread we have people arguing that less than 1% of abortions are from rape and therefore should be ignored. Seems like both sides argue in favor of the majority, doesn't it? The difference is, my argument doesn't restrict the rights of already established people.
- Status
